The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces.

The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces.

Line 111:

Line 115:

==== Windows dual boot ====

==== Windows dual boot ====

−

The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation and install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora.

+

The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation and, when performing a BIOS (not UEFI) installation, install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora.

{{hidden|header=Clean Windows installation?|content=This is a get-out clause for cases where there's a bug caused by some weirdness or abnormality in the Windows installation; we can't plausibly undertake to support every possible Windows deployment. The expected scenario is a cleanly installed or OEM-deployed Windows installation. Issues caused by recovery or 'system' partitions may not be considered to violate this criterion, depending on the specific circumstances. This criterion is considered to cover both BIOS and UEFI cases.|headerstyle=background:#e5e5e5|fw1=normal|ta1=left}}

{{hidden|header=Clean Windows installation?|content=This is a get-out clause for cases where there's a bug caused by some weirdness or abnormality in the Windows installation; we can't plausibly undertake to support every possible Windows deployment. The expected scenario is a cleanly installed or OEM-deployed Windows installation. Issues caused by recovery or 'system' partitions may not be considered to violate this criterion, depending on the specific circumstances. This criterion is considered to cover both BIOS and UEFI cases.|headerstyle=background:#e5e5e5|fw1=normal|ta1=left}}

{{hidden|header=References|content=

{{hidden|header=References|content=

Line 176:

Line 180:

* Part of initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

* Part of initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

* Slightly revised for major Fedora 19 criteria revision

* Slightly revised for major Fedora 19 criteria revision

−

* Test case: missing

+

* Test case: [[QA:Testcase_desktop_error_checks]]

|headerstyle=background:#e5e5e5|fw1=normal|ta1=left}}

|headerstyle=background:#e5e5e5|fw1=normal|ta1=left}}

{{anchor|data-corruption}}

{{anchor|data-corruption}}

+

==== Data corruption ====

==== Data corruption ====

All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at [[Common F20 bugs]].

All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at [[Common F20 bugs]].

Final Objectives

The objective of the Final release is to:

Provide a polished final release suitable for meeting the needs of our Target Audience

Final Release Requirements

In order to be released to the general public, a compose must meet all of the following criteria. This is intended to make the decision process as clear and straightforward as possible. Mostly met items are incomplete until they are met. Optional and nice to have items should not be included in this list.

There may be times where a requirement is unmet only in a particular configuration, such as with some keyboard layouts but not others, or if a particular character is used in a username, password or passphrase. In such cases, the release team should use their judgement and refer to precedent to determine whether or not the issue should be considered to block the release. They should consider the number of users likely to be affected by the issue, the severity of the case when the issue is encountered, and the ease or otherwise with which the issue can be avoided by both informed and uninformed users.

The term release-blocking desktops means all the desktop environments in which bugs are currently considered capable of blocking a Fedora release. The current set of release-blocking desktops for the x86 architectures is GNOME and KDE, and for the ARM architectures is Xfce. Note that bugs in desktops that are not part of this set which would infringe these criteria automatically qualify for freeze exception status, according to the freeze exception bug process.

The term release-blocking images means all the images in which bugs are currently considered capable of blocking a Fedora release. The current set of release-blocking images includes the images defined by the three primary Products - Server, Workstation and Cloud - in their product requirement documents and/or technical specifications, and the KDE live image. As of Fedora 24, no 32-bit x86 image can be 'release-blocking', by FESCo policy. The canonical list of release-blocking images for Fedora 28 is on this page.

Process requirements

Beta criteria met

Final blockers CLOSED

Installer requirements

Media consistency verification

Validation of install media must work correctly for all release-blocking images.

Details

This means that the installer's mechanism for verifying that the install medium is intact must complete successfully if the medium is correctly written and return a legible failure message if it is not.

Live image persistent overlays

The release-blocking live images must properly support mounting and using a persistent storage overlay for the entire system and/or one for the /home partition.

Writing not covered

This criterion does not cover the writing of the persistent overlay, as that stage is likely to be done using a stable released Fedora or other operating system and hence irrelevant to the release validation process.

Disk layouts

The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration.

Wait, what?

Yeah, we know. This is a huge catch-all criterion and it's subject to a lot of on-the-fly interpretation. Broadly what it's 'meant to mean' is that you should be able to do anything sane that the Installation Destination spoke attempts to let you do, without the installer exploding or failing. We are trying to write more specific criteria covering this area, but it's not easy. Patches welcome, as the kids say...

Default installer configuration?

The default installer configuration clause specifically excludes options that only appear in the installer if you do something special to trigger them. There have been times when the installer has implemented experimental support for some new filesystem by showing it if you pass a special kernel parameter, for instance: the purpose of this clause is explicitly not to cover cases like that.

References

Part of initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

Slightly contracted and abstracted for major Fedora 19 criteria revision

Bootloader disk selection

The installer must allow the user to choose which disk the system bootloader will be installed to, and to choose not to install one at all.

References

Added as part of major Fedora 19 criteria revision

Test case: missing

Storage volume resize

Any installer mechanism for resizing storage volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation.

What does that cover?

This means that if the installer offers mechanisms for resizing storage volumes, then it must run the appropriate resizing tool with the appropriate parameters for the resize the user chooses. The reason it's worded this way is we specifically don't want to cover cases where the requested resize operation then fails for some reason - dirtily unmounted or over-fragmented partition, for instance. We
only want to cover the case that the installer's resize code itself is badly broken.

Corruption-causing bugs covered in another criterion

This criterion does not necessarily cover all cases of bugs in resize mechanisms which may cause some kind of data corruption, but any such bug would be covered by the general data corruption criterion.

Windows dual boot

The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean Windows installation and, when performing a BIOS (not UEFI) installation, install a bootloader which can boot into both Windows and Fedora.

Clean Windows installation?

This is a get-out clause for cases where there's a bug caused by some weirdness or abnormality in the Windows installation; we can't plausibly undertake to support every possible Windows deployment. The expected scenario is a cleanly installed or OEM-deployed Windows installation. Issues caused by recovery or 'system' partitions may not be considered to violate this criterion, depending on the specific circumstances. This criterion is considered to cover both BIOS and UEFI cases.

Critical path translations

All critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must correctly display all sufficiently complete translations available for use.

What does this cover, exactly?

This criterion covers bugs that cause available translations not to be shown. It does not require that any translations at all be available: 'something is not translated to my language' cannot constitute a violation of this criterion. The "sufficiently complete" wording refers to a mechanism in Fedora which means that translations are not actually included until they reach a certain percentage of completion.

SELinux and crash notifications

There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop.

Exclusions

Notifications that only happen on unusual configurations are excluded: see Blocker_Bug_FAQ.

Data corruption

All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F20 bugs.

User data?

"User data" really means data: attempts have been made to apply this criterion to things like trivial items of configuration being reset on upgrades or the setting of the system clock, but that is not going to fly.

Fixed or documented?

If the issue is sufficiently serious, we may consider that documenting it is not sufficient and it must be fixed. This is a subjective determination that will be made at blocker review or Go/No-Go meetings.

References

Part of initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

Test case: N/A (a test case for this criterion is not practical, it instead covers all "known bugs")

Default application functionality

All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test.

Basic functionality

Basic functionality means that the app must at least be broadly capable of its most basic expected operations, and that it must not crash without user intervention or with only basic user intervention.

References

Part of the 'menu sanity' block of the initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

Default panel functionality

All elements of the default panel (or equivalent) configuration in all release-blocking desktops must function correctly in typical use.

Typical use?

Especially with GNOME 3 and KDE 4, 'panel (or equivalent)' covers quite a wide range of features, including some pretty advanced stuff - you could argue that all elements of GNOME network configuration are covered because there's a network icon on the top panel, for instance. The intent of the criterion is more that very prominent features of the desktop don't break easily, so there's a subjective cut-off in there which is decided in the blocker review process. The key question is "would this bug cause significant inconvenience or just a really bad first impression to a typical user or reviewer of the release?"

References

Part of the 'menu sanity' block of the initial Fedora 13 criteria revision

Artwork

The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and used as the background on release-blocking desktops. All Fedora artwork visible in critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must be consistent with the proposed final theme.

Security bugs

The release must contain no known security bugs of 'important' or higher impact according to the Red Hat severity classification scale which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by a package update (e.g. issues during installation).

Determination

Determination of the classification of a bug can be done by those present at a blocker review or Go/No-Go meeting if necessary, but if the Fedora or Red Hat security team provides a classification, we will usually defer to their wisdom.

Test case: N/A (a test case for this criterion is not practical, it instead covers all "known bugs")

Kickstarts

A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files used to build the release must be present in the release repository. The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release repositories.

Why?

This is considered part of Fedora's duty to be 'self-hosting': the kickstarts used to produce the release images are a vital piece of information required to duplicate that release, so they must be preserved along with the release.

Release identification

A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the release repository.

A Fedora Change being incomplete, in and of itself, does not constitute a blocker bug. The Change process is separate from this process. Changes are required to meet certain standards at certain points of the release cycle, but this is part of the Change process and managed, tracked and enforced separately from this process. However, if a proposed feature being incomplete causes any of the above criteria to be met, then the bug is a release blocker.

Contingency Plan

If all of the Final Release Requirements are not met by 20:00 UTC on Tuesday the week prior to release day, the release will be delayed by one week so that the Final Release Requirements can be met.

One week will be added to all remaining tasks in the release schedule, including the final release date.

Confirming Final Requirements

QA has the responsibility of determining whether the criteria for the release has been met (as outlined above) through discussion with Development and Release Engineering. QA's findings will be reviewed and discussed at the Go/No-Go Meeting.